01-10-77 PC Minutes � ;���
MINUTES OF THE GOLOEN VALLEY
PLANNIN6 COMMISSI(3N
January 10, 1977
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
�ol�°end��aileynu�i�ine�dta9�� at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present:
Cortmissioners Forster, Hughes, Lundsgaard, Mindess, Sehlin, Specktor, and Wagman.
Atso present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioner Herje.
1 . APPROVAI OF MINUTES: MOVED by Forster, seconded by Mughes, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1976 Planning Commission
meeting as mailed.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION — INFORMATION
(a) Housing and Community Development Block Grant
Chairman Edstrom informed the Planning Commission that the City Council will
hold hearings on January 17, 1977 and February 7. 1977 (regularty scheduled
Council meetings) to receive input regarding the spending of funds from the
Housing and Community Development Block Grant.
The Planning Commission decided to place this item on their next agenda to
determine whether members of the Cortmission had any input.
(b) City Council — Annuat Meeting with Planning Comnission Chairman
Chairman Edstrom informed the Planning Commission that he will meet with the City
Council on Wednesday, January 12, 1977 to discuss the Planning Commission, and
if there is any item that shoutd be covered, the Chairman should be informed of
it. Re—appointment of Commission members will also be discussed.
3• WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Applicant: Golden Valley Lutheran College
Location: 6125 Olson Memorial Highway
Request: Create a Separate Parcel of Land for the Administration
Building Area
Zoning: Institutional (I-2)
The request is to divide the Administration building area, which is part of the
College Carr�us, into a separate parcel of record. The reason for the request is
that the College has received a grant from the State for a new dormitory
building. One of the conditions in order to receive the grant is that the State
wants title to all ti�e buildings and land, except the tand area required for the
Administration building and the building itself. According to the present Zoning
Ordinance, the Administration building on a separate parcel can meet the green
area and parking requirements. The building requires 225 parking spaces, and
the new site area allows for 300 parking spaces. When the loan period is
completed, the land owned by the State will revert back to the College.
� ��
Planning Commission
January 10, 1977 page 2
In reviewing the request, the following should be considered if the division is
approved: 1 ) When the loan period is completed, the parcel as requested to be a
separate unit of land to revert back as one unit of land, 2) easements for
pubtic utilities between the properties.
Messrs. Van Putten, Attorney, Bernt Opsal , President of the Coliege, and
Oan Swedberg, Architect, were present for the request. Mr. Van Putten stated
that because of the law dealing with separation of church and State, in order
to receive the twenty—year loan the Administration building is to be a separate
parcel because it contains a chapel .
Juel Svenkerud, resident of 6421 Westchester Circle, questioned that if the
College does not make it, can the State rent the buildings out, for exarr�le, for
tow rent housing.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as submitted on the survey pre—
pared by Egan Field & Nowak, Inc. dated January 5, 1977, subject to: 1 ) after the
loan period is completed, the separate parcel is to revert back as one unit of
land, 2) easements for public utilities between the taro properties.
4. PLANNEO UNIT DEVELOPMENT — SET PUBLIC INFORNWTIONAL MEETING
P.U.D. #16—A King' s Creek — Concept Plan
Proponent: Cheyenne Land Company
Location: 5916 Glenwood Avenue
Request: Construct 20 Doubte Units and 4 Quad Units for a Total of
56 Living Units
Ron Basteir of McCoombs Knutson Associates was present to request that the
Planning Comnission set a hearing date for P.U.D. #16—A.
It was moved by lundsgaard, seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously, to set
February 14, 1977 for the informational hearing date for King' s Creek and that
the proponent meet with the City' s Trail and Open Space Committee to inform them
of their plan prior to the hearing. The Planning Commission also strongly urged
that the proponent meet with the surrounding property owners pr,ior to the
Planning Commission' s informational hearing.
5• REQUEST BY CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW AN OPEN PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT
2000 MARY HILLS ORIVE FOR A DOUBLE BUNGALOW
A request was made to the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a taro—fa�nily dwelling
i� a residential area and a waiver of the square footage requirements. The Board
of Zoning Appeals denied the request, pointing out the lot contains approximately
13,500 square feet. The decision was then appealed to the City Council , and the
Councit at their December 20, 1976 meeting deferred action on the request, asking
that the Planning Comnission review this parcel for a double bungalow lot. The
real estate agent has been notified that the Planning Commission would be discussing
this request.
. . �
i_':��
Planning Commission
January 10, 1977 page 3
Background:
The lot is located on the Northeast corner of Mary Hills Drive and Golden Valley
Road. The land use to the North and East is single family residential and
contains a Residential zoning, which is the same zoning as the parcel in question.
The lot to the West houses Unity Christ Church and es zoned Institutional (I—t ).
The lot is across the street from MISCCA which is aoned Institutional (I-3).
Statistics:
The parcel contains approximatety 13,500 square feet with a frontage on its long
side of 154 feet. The Ordinance for a two family dwelling catls for 150 feet of
frontage and 18,750 square feet in a lot. The parcel is an open lot which contains
very few trees (mainty on the boulevard area) and slopes to the South. The North
area of the parcel is approximately 18 feet higher than the Golden Valley Road side.
Review of Area:
The owner of the lot in question also owns Lots 4,5, and 6 of Block 4 Mary Hills.
The property owner' s home is located on Lot 6. In reviewing the area the Council
felt that if Lot 7 were approved for a double, in the future someone may apply for
a double on Lot 5. Because of the contiguous ownership of the lots, there could be
a replatting of this area and Lots 5 and 7 could contain more square footage.
Lot 5 is a wooded lot and is very steep. In reviewing the site and surroundir►g
area Lot 5 by itself should remain as a single family tot. A designer could take
advantage of the terrain and vegetation, placing the house further to the North
on the lot, which would give the living area of the lot more protection from
Golden Valley Road. To the South of Golden Valley Road lies Theodore Wirth Park
which provides a non congested view, while to the North and East is single
family residential .
Parcel in Question (Lot 7):
Some points in evaluating the site are as foltows: The parcel is open, a corner
lot on Golden Valley Road, adjacent to a heavier use to the West, and more intense
uses to the South. The lot basically meets the requirements of a single family
lot because of the square footage; however, square footage could be added by
adjusting lot lines. The single family lots in this area contain over 15,000
square feet. A single family L—shaped house could be designed for the lot. With
the L—shaped structure the exterior living area could be located Northeast on the
site. Presently in this area there are no :double units adjacent to Golden Valley
Road. If the Planning Comnission feels the lot could support a double unit, tHro
recommendations should be submitted to the Council : 1 ) ingress and egress to the
lot to be located off Mary Hills Orive, and 2) proponent to submit to the Councit
plans for the unit and a plot plan. Any deviation from the plan, and a permit
could not be issued.
Vice Chairman Donald Hughes reviewed the discussion at the Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting at the time this request was presented and the reasons for which it was
denied. The Comnission in discussing the request referred to the present land
use in the area, future land use, future of Golden Ualley Road, present and
proposed Zoning Code. It was further noted that all single family lots in the
vicinity were larger than 12,500 square feet.
� ��'T
Planning Commission
January 10, 1977 page 4
It was moved by Wagmen, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously, to recommend
to the City Council that the request be denied due to the extreme deviation of
the square footage requirements in the present Zoning Ordinance and proposed
zoning ordinance.
Jon Westlake e�cplained to the Commission that in the future the Council had asked
that the Planning Commission review the standards and requirements for double units.
6. TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Cornnission referred to the December 13, ]976 Planning Commission minutes which
speak in regard to holding a hearing on the Transportation Section of the
Corr�rehansive Plan, noting the changes are not significant; therefore, it is not
required that the Planning Commission hold a hearing.
The Planning Commission then reviewed the Transportation Section of the Corr�rehensive
Plan. In reviewing the changes the Cornmission recalled the discussions they had
with the City Cowncil in reference to this Section of the Corr�rehensive Plan. The
newer Comnission members questioned why deletions and changes were made in the Plan.
Chairman Edstrom gave a brief explanation of what had transpired with the
Transportation Section. Commissioner Specktor indicated she was disappointed with
how this Section of the Plan turned out.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Hughes to accept the changes and deletions
in the Transportation Section of the Co►r�rehensive Plan (draft copy dated July 1976)
as submitted to the Planning Commission from the City Council meeting of
August 2, 1976. The motion carried with Commissioner Sehlin voting nay.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duty seconded, adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
�
a ,
. ,
� �---_______�___.
c y.
C rman Ron Eds o Sec e ary Ka ryn erj